Going into the Democratic National Convention (DNC), one of the primary criticisms of Vice President Kamala Harris’s campaign was that it subsisted more on vibes than substance. The Dispatch’s Nick Catoggio used a Seinfeld line to liken it to “a show about nothing,” and he was hardly alone in that sentiment. While that approach has been effective to date, taking the race from one that favored former President Trump to a toss-up, the same polls that see the candidates as evenly matched in terms of votes have also found that more voters trust Trump on key issues like the economy, immigration, and public safety.

As such, one of this week’s primary goals for the DNC has been to slowly introduce some of Harris’s policies without losing the momentum her campaign has built over the last month; a difficult balance to achieve considering the division within the Democratic party on a number of these topics.

The process began with formally approving the DNC’s party platform. However, since the document was passed on July 16 when President Biden was still the party’s official candidate, it’s difficult to know to what extent it reflects the priorities of a Harris-led ticket. While the 92-page document covers a variety of issues, the vice president has already announced competing plans on several of them.

Many were hoping Harris’s speech last night would clarify what she hopes to accomplish if elected. However, details were scant throughout the forty-plus minutes she spoke.

Harris’s Greatest Campaign Challenge
When the vice president took the stage last night, she dedicated the first fifteen minutes to essentially sharing her life story, including how she was raised, why she got into law and then politics, and the formative influence that her community had on her growing up. After then formally accepting her party’s nomination, she quickly pivoted to a critique of her opponent, a tactic she repeated throughout the remainder of her speech.

And while she spoke to her goals and priorities should she be elected, she frequently went into more detail on Project 2025 and claims that it represents what Trump would do if he wins in November—an association he has frequently denied—than she did on her own platform.

Her strongest moments were when speaking about the wars in Ukraine and Israel, as well as the need to go forward rather than backward as a nation. In particular, characterizing Hamas as a terrorist organization and openly condemning the attacks last October marked a clear and welcome departure from how many in the Democratic party have approached the issue.

Ultimately, her speech had the desired effect on the crowd, and many parts of it were clearly attempts to reach across the aisle in an appeal to those who have not yet made up their minds regarding November’s election. And while it’s unclear at this point how effective those attempts will be, the early returns are positive.

Now, as the political calendar turns toward the first debate between Harris and Trump on September 10, the question will be if the vice president will shed further light on her policies prior to that point or try to keep to the same approach her campaign has used to date.

You see, most pundits agree that the greatest challenge for Harris in this election will be creating a degree of separation between herself and the Biden presidency when she has played an integral part in its decisions. Given that 69 percent of voters believe major changes are needed, it seems doubtful that her campaign can maintain the same momentum without demonstrating that she can bring about that change. Thursday night was her biggest opportunity yet to do just that, and she largely opted against it.

Her reasons for doing so, however, offer an important warning for each of us today.

“The Virtue of Courage”
One of the flaws inherent to a democracy is that it incentivizes our leaders to do what is popular rather than what is right. Ideally, those two perspectives would be one and the same, however, that is often not how it plays out. As such, those seeking office from both parties often find themselves attempting to balance concerns and viewpoints that are fundamentally at odds with one another.

The chief reason for Kamala Harris’s relative silence on policy positions to this point in her campaign is that such silence gives people room to see what they want to see. Once she takes a side, though, she will inevitably risk alienating a portion of the population.

Yet, that temptation toward silence and ambivalence in a vain attempt to keep the peace is hardly limited to politicians.

Each of us can likely think back to a time when we chose the absence of conflict at the expense of standing up for the truth. The issue is that the more often you make that choice, the easier it gets to continue doing so. And that’s a problem when God has called us to share a truth that many will not want to hear, regardless of the cost (Matthew 28:16–20).

So what can we do?

C. S. Lewis once noted that “The virtue of courage is a prerequisite for the practice of all other virtues, otherwise one is virtuous only when virtue has no cost.”

The Lord needs more of that courage from his Christians today. That doesn’t mean we should go looking for a fight, but standing on the solid rock of Scripture—even when storms shake the world around us—will always be the right choice regardless of its popularity. And one of the best ways to demonstrate that courage in our culture today is by placing our loyalty to the Lord far above our loyalty to political parties or other people.

How can you demonstrate that courage today?

Source